Posts

The Continental
Rationalists Although both the Empiricists and the Rationalists shared many
common ideas, the Rationalists are so named due to their emphasis on reason as
the sole infallible way to obtain knowledge. Some of the philosophers who fit
under this banner are Malebranche, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Wolff, and
D’Alembert. However, just because they can all be called rationalists does not
mean that they all hold to the exact same views on epistemology and
metaphysics. In fact, some of their systems are so different, that there are
only a few common threads that hold them together. These threads, however, are
foundational to their views, and important enough to be used as a way of
distinguishing them from other philosophers. We will look at the main threads
that are used to distinguish them from the empirical philosophers, first in
epistemology, and secondly in their metaphysics. We will follow this order due
to the fact that their metaphysical systems are built upon their
ep…

It’s been a while since I’ve posted
any thoughts on my blog. I have recently finished reading D. H. Williams’ book
Evangelicals and Tradition, and decided to continue some of my brief thoughts
on the problem of biblical interpretation and authority for Christian doctrine
and practice (see here). The debate in question is, of course, of importance for all of
the different groups that would claim to be Christian. Now Protestants make the
claim that the Bible, the inspired word of God, alone, is the only authority
for all Christian practice and doctrine. The protestant would deny that
tradition, in any form, can exercise any authority on Christian doctrine and
practice. There are, however, a number of problems to such a claim. First of
all, it is a matter of historical fact that the canon of the New Testament was
discovered, defended, and worked out by the early church during the first 500
years of its existence. Therefore, the New Testament, and therefore the Bible
as we kn…

I have been thinking about this subject for quite a while, and find the problem quite interesting. Basically, the problem is as follows. Is the Bible the sole authority for all Christian doctrine and practice. Protestants affirm that it is - SolaScriptura. However, the positive affirmation brings forward a further problem - the Bible as interpreted by whom? There are many divergent interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures, frequently upon subjects that are important doctrines or practices, such as Justification, the Lord's Supper, baptism, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. The differences of interpretation are not only between such groups as the Catholics and Protestants. Within the ranks of Protestantism there are many important differences (such as the debates between Calvinists and Arminians). Which interpretation of the Bible is authoritative? In working through this argument I began with the assumption that any authority must,of necessity, be infallible. However, u…